0:00The most newsworthy event was the board’s unanimous approval of variances requested by Ralph Fuchi and Carla Macaluso for their property on Laurel Place. The couple sought to construct a second-floor and attic addition to their home, situated in an R-1 single-family zone district. The project required variances for setbacks from Laurel Place and Upper Mountain Avenue, as well as a rear yard setback. Ralph Fuchi expressed their long-term commitment to Montclair, stating, “We’ve lived in Montclair for 17 years…We love the location.” Architect Lawrence Quirk emphasized that the renovations would maintain the existing footprint, with minor extensions for design features such as bay windows and a portico.

Board members posed several questions to ensure the project’s compatibility with neighborhood aesthetics and functionality. Mr. Church inquired about the garage’s position and the potential impact of the addition, while Mr. Vieira noted the challenges posed by the property being a corner lot. Despite these concerns, the board expressed unanimous support, with Mr. Church remarking, “I think the application is a good one…You’re really not stepping out to make the building bigger than it is.” Another board member echoed this sentiment, highlighting the enhancement the project would bring to the neighborhood. Ultimately, the application was approved unanimously.

21:00The meeting then shifted to a detailed presentation and public hearing on the proposed seven-unit development on Orange Road, represented by Gregory Ving and traffic engineer Mr. Klein from Klein Traffic Consulting. The development had been revised from eight to seven units, prompting an updated traffic study. Mr. Klein explained that the project would generate minimal traffic, with estimates of three trips during peak morning hours and three trips during peak evening hours. He contended that the low trip generation would not impact traffic on surrounding streets.

37:44However, board members and residents expressed skepticism about these findings. Concerns were raised about the adequacy of parking, the maneuverability of large vehicles like fire trucks, and the visibility at key intersections. Residents, including council member Amina Toler, questioned whether the study had adequately considered the presence of school buses, garbage trucks, and emergency vehicles. Kimberly Malloy voiced worries about the safety of children in the area, particularly during school bus pickups.

1:13:11The discussion extended to the project’s architectural and zoning aspects. The applicant sought variances for three stories instead of the permitted 2.5 stories, as well as for front and rear setbacks. Matthew Flynn, a professional planner, argued that the proposed residential units would better align with the area’s zoning intent, replacing a non-conforming commercial use with a more appropriate residential development. Flynn highlighted the property’s substantial size and the reduction in impervious coverage as benefits of the project.

37:44Despite these arguments, residents remained concerned about the potential for increased traffic and changes to the neighborhood’s character. One resident, Leonor Rush, questioned the validity of the traffic study. Another resident, Bonnie Abrams Bogel, invited the traffic engineer to observe the area firsthand to understand the real traffic conditions.

3:07:19The board also discussed the broader implications of zoning changes and their impact on community dynamics. Residents expressed apprehension about gentrification and the affordability of the proposed units, fearing that the development could displace long-term residents. The developer assured that the project would include provisions to prevent short-term rentals, typically enforcing a minimum leasing period of six months.

3:26:36In the concluding discussions, the board addressed scheduling concerns and the status of multiple applications. The chairman confirmed the availability of an engineer for an upcoming application and noted the urgency of accommodating public input. The application for the 400 Orange Road project was scheduled for continued discussion on November 6, with the intention of placing it first on the agenda to facilitate thorough deliberation.